"The pages above have described the classical documentary hypothesis. As we will mention below, there are a number of variations on the theme, and indeed, there has been some fundamental questioning of the approach. Before evaluating the documentary hypothesis, however, three alternative critical views will be briefly described: (1) the fragmentary approach, (2) the supplementary approach, and (3) form criticism and tradition history.
Fragmentary Approach
The distinguishing characteristic of the documentary hypothesis (as a particular type of source analysis) is not that it postulates sources to explain the composition of the Pentateuch, but rather that these sources were originally four independent, continuous narratives. The fragmentary approach denies that the sources had an original independent unity. The first scholars to describe such an approach seriously were A. Geddes, J. S. Vater, and W. M. L. de Wette (late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, see Rogerson 1985, 35, 154 – 57). The documentary hypothesis has a far greater burden of proof — not only must it identify the sources for individual blocks of material (fragments), but it must also show that the fragments themselves originally belonged to the four continuous narratives the theory posits.
Supplementary Approach
Other scholars felt that there was a single basic document that was then supplemented either by a later author who used it or by a later redactor who used one document (Grundschrift) as the base and another to supplement it. As developed by the early H. G. A. Ewald (nineteenth century) and others (including the early Delitzsch), E was understood to be the basic document, and J was the text used to supplement it at a later date. Soon after that, however, E was divided into two separate documents (thereafter called E and P), thus resulting in more than one continuous document. Some recent studies (Wenham, see below), however, have returned to a form of supplementary hypothesis, based on the fact that E is rarely recognized as an independent source these days.
Form Criticism and Tradition History
Influenced by the folklore studies of his day, H. Gunkel significantly altered the course of the study of the origin of the Pentateuch at least for a number of important German scholars (Longman 1985). Instead of documentary sources (whose existence he never contested), Gunkel focused on form-critical units, primarily saga, in the Pentateuch. He posited their oral origin and their development through time. In the next generation, his thought particularly influenced Noth, von Rad, and Westermann, all of whom (like Gunkel) continued to support the traditional documentary hypothesis. Noth, though, concentrated on what he considered to be the six basic themes of the Pentateuch:
- Primeval history
- Patriarchal stories
- Exodus
- Sinai
- Wilderness wanderings
- Settlement
Noth argued that these six themes arose and developed independently, coming together only at a late stage. Von Rad agreed and drew attention to the absence of Sinai from the exodus tradition. He cited Deuteronomy 26:5 – 10 (an early statement of faith that does not mention Sinai) as strong evidence that these two traditions had an independent history of development.
It was Rendtorff in the German tradition (OTI, 160 – 63, and 1977), who recognized the incompatibility of tradition history and documentary approaches. In his work he describes how independent traditions are brought together into individual complexes of tradition (such as the different patriarchal stories — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph). These were then combined into even larger complexes — the patriarchal narrative, with insertions uniting them. After this, the narratives were brought into even larger units by means of theological redaction and finally given a Deuteronomistic and Priestly revision.
Rendtorff is certainly correct to move away from a documentary approach that sees the present text as the awkward joining of different continuous documents. His approach takes into account the smoothness of the narrative in a way foreign to the older critical approach. But more recent literary approaches question the older approach, and indeed the tradition-critical approach, at an even deeper level."
It was Rendtorff in the German tradition (OTI, 160 – 63, and 1977), who recognized the incompatibility of tradition history and documentary approaches. In his work he describes how independent traditions are brought together into individual complexes of tradition (such as the different patriarchal stories — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph). These were then combined into even larger complexes — the patriarchal narrative, with insertions uniting them. After this, the narratives were brought into even larger units by means of theological redaction and finally given a Deuteronomistic and Priestly revision.
Rendtorff is certainly correct to move away from a documentary approach that sees the present text as the awkward joining of different continuous documents. His approach takes into account the smoothness of the narrative in a way foreign to the older critical approach. But more recent literary approaches question the older approach, and indeed the tradition-critical approach, at an even deeper level."
Taken from "An Introduction to Old Testament" by Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard
